It doesn’t mean a lack of government. It’s an attempt to remove hierarchy, where possible,
That’s one of the most ludicrous sentences I’ve ever read.
To govern is necessarily and explicitly hierarchical, since the entire idea is that the choices an individual might make are in some way constrained. And the only possible way that they can be constrained is if it’s first stipulated that some entity has a greater say over what they may, may not, must or must not be than the person themself has.
But hey - the broad history of attempts to encourage thinking that will lead to universal freedom from the nominally rightful imposition of the wills of some upon others is in large part a history of abandoning labels as they’re each in turn captured by those who won’t stand for or can’t even envision a world in which they can’t see their preferences imposed on those who don’t share them.
You can have horizontal hierarchy, where no one has a position above others. People need to agree to certain rules. There are structures that allow for this, such as direct democracy. There will always be a need for some structure, so people know what is and isn’t allowed. Anarchism is not anarchy, as media portrays it. It’s not total chaos. It’s organization that removes vertical hierarchies.
Otherwise, you appear to be trapped in the inherently self-defeating idea that people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions so people should be empowered to constrain them, resting solely on a foundation of rhetoric and apologetics.
Seriously WTF?
That’s one of the most ludicrous sentences I’ve ever read.
To govern is necessarily and explicitly hierarchical, since the entire idea is that the choices an individual might make are in some way constrained. And the only possible way that they can be constrained is if it’s first stipulated that some entity has a greater say over what they may, may not, must or must not be than the person themself has.
But hey - the broad history of attempts to encourage thinking that will lead to universal freedom from the nominally rightful imposition of the wills of some upon others is in large part a history of abandoning labels as they’re each in turn captured by those who won’t stand for or can’t even envision a world in which they can’t see their preferences imposed on those who don’t share them.
You can have horizontal hierarchy, where no one has a position above others. People need to agree to certain rules. There are structures that allow for this, such as direct democracy. There will always be a need for some structure, so people know what is and isn’t allowed. Anarchism is not anarchy, as media portrays it. It’s not total chaos. It’s organization that removes vertical hierarchies.
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/Category:Concepts
IMO, this is the only part you got right.
Otherwise, you appear to be trapped in the inherently self-defeating idea that people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions so people should be empowered to constrain them, resting solely on a foundation of rhetoric and apologetics.